If he had any hand in routinely making decisions on when to settle and when not to, he regularly had to do the "Oh **** this, this is stupid. Just settle and get rid of it" thing. This includes, possibly in the majority, all kinds of employment-related actions...discrimination, hostile work environment, etc. I still don't think you necessarily would have a sexual harassment suit stand out 15-20 years later if it was frivolous, because people bring complaints about stupid **** all the time.

As to me, I'm not a Cain defender; just yesterday I was semi-accused of wanting him properly railroaded out of the way. I actually lean toward believing these accusations. I was just saying that an argument that was being posited as open-and-shut is not really that at all. It's something to consider, but it's not that strong.

He shouldn't be fuzzy about the fact that the claims were made. Or that there were settlements.

Yeah I'm probably putting a little too much stock into a South Carolina poll when nobody (to my knowledge) is doing much of any campaigning there right now. It's just key because it's a 3rd state, but the numbers are prone to fluctuate wildly. Basically the state polls beyond Iowa/NH are just microcosms of national polling, adjusted for the type of political state it is. I maintain that the Perry thing is really bad for him because if he doesn't have the evangelicals he's got nothing.

Disagree, without more details available. Again I assume that claims and settlements are downright routine at most big corporations.

Uhh, I'm pretty sure I'd remember and be upset about being falsely accused of sexual harassment.

Like, you're making this "ah it's routine. you know how it is, a CEO has some formal harassment complaints and settles them" argument, but have you ever had a job?

You keep saying that claims are routine. And I'm sure they are, at a big enough company with enough employees. But these were PERSONALLY INVOLVING CAIN. It's not that he might have needed to sign off on paying a settlement for some complaint involving the Tucson field office manager sending around an offensive chain email, this was wrongdoing he was alleged to have done personally. People would've talked to him about it. People would've investigated it.

I worked for one company for a couple of years that was small and had almost nothing but women in management positions so it wouldn't be nearly as likely of a place for sexual harassment. There was one guy in mid-level management who got suspended twice for sex stuff though (according to rumor...happened before I got there but the dude was ****ing sleazy as hell so I believe it). Other job was for a BP refinery, but the office I was in had absolutely nothing but dudes in it so not really applicable. My own experiences aren't really conducive to the same type of corporate structure.

Again I didn't say the point was wrong. I just said it wasn't an open-and-shut "boom, roasted" argument that ends the matter.

This is exactly our point! You remember some other dude's alleged misconduct that occurred before you started working there. When **** like that happens, it's a big deal for everyone who knows the people involved. It's a presumably a much much bigger deal when you ARE the person involved.

Now, you're right that it's not a big deal for the lawyer working on harassment claims up at the corporate office. So if we asked the NRA's lawyer and he was like "jeez I dunno, you said it was in 1996?" that would be completely understandable. But for some reason you're extending that "it may have been routine for Cain to sign off on harassment claim settlements" argument to "it may have been routine for Cain to sign off on harassment claim settlements INVOLVING HERMAN CAIN" like that last part isn't the most important part.

Even as much as I don't like Perry, this is well-played.



Say "no comment" when asked about Herman Cain and then push your own family values in a separate campaign ad while Cain's ship is sinking. Perry hasn't shown much political savvy, but he and his handlers did this one correctly. Meanwhile Romney had a slight stumble in even commenting at all on the whole thing, but he didn't do anything too damaging.

That Perry commercial is very, very well done.

I mean I remembered the other dude's stuff as an afterthought. That guy was memorable. I liked how he had known me for all of a day when he started coming into my office and proudly telling me war stories of cheating on his wife. It was so absurd that I assumed that he was kidding. Later I found out he wasn't. He legitimately falls into contendership for sleaziest guy I ever knew.

Anyway, your second paragraph does make a good argument. Perhaps you're right.

This is amazing.

Kurto,

I don't know whether Cain is innocent or guilty, but I tend to presume innocence until I see compelling evidence one way or the other.

Anon #1 has now been found to have made another similar workplace claim against another boss seeking compensation. Is that not relevant to whether her claims are truthful?

Has she even said what Cain did that engendered the claim? NO. I wonder why, don't you? It seems in the second case, she got into a state of high dudgeon over not being allowed to work at home and an innocuous e-mail joke to all employees. That seems to argue she just might have a sensitive trigger finger.

As to Ms. Bielak she makes a claim and she and her mouthpiece give not a shred of corroborating evidence. Not a morsel. Did Allred subpoena the records of the so hotel where Cain supposedly paid for the 'Rainman suite' for the so called tryst. Any information about whose car the attack took place in? Cain's car? A car service? Anything at all. Nope. Just a black man jammed his hand into my crotch and i did nothing about it for 14 years.

Did I mention she coincidentally lives in the same building as Obama's political director. Small world , eh????? I know... just another coincidence.

To quote a dem icon.... "where's the beef?"

Romney avoids protesters by "sneaking in the front door like a coward."

Funny how it is seemingly not unusual then when Anon #1's memory is a little shaky about a case SHE BROUGHT against her boss at the INS:

I wonder if she remembers the details in the case she brought against Cain? I wonder why she hasn't regaled us with them as of yet?

I wonder if she is a blackout drunkard like Cain has been accused on this board?

The entire false accusal and using anonymous sources is the party line with the gop and its propaganda arm, Foxnews. Stewart did a bit on the anonymous is bad, as long as it doesn't indict Rahm Emanual. Then its a confirmed allegation.

Do these people still think it takes more than seconds to confirm or deny searchable facts?

Must be some powerful movement. They don't have enough manpower or intelligence to cover "both" entrances. LOL

I do like that sneaking in the front door, though. ****ing pussy, that Romney

Cain is joke. Lead actor in the kabuki theater that has become American politic's. No one should have needed sexual harassment allegation's to help them decide, common sense was all you needed to figure out Cain is not qualified to be President. Even he knows he is a joke. He has no ground teams in any states.
Duh. Romney will get the nomination unless Huntsman somehow gets noticed. Then Romney will lose the Presidential race. His own base hates lol.

Anon #1 and Ms Beilak are sounding more and more like Miss Mayella from the best movie/book of all time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44TG_...eature=related

Except when it comes to the guilt of the accusers. Then they're liars until proven truthful.

I'm just reinforcing what was said earlier that rings true to me... claims and settlements are quite routine, but not claims are settlements where you are accused of sexual harrassment. The ones that involve him personally are of a different nature then the majority of settlements a company should be making.

I have trouble believing that he didn't take particular interest in ones alleging he did something personally that true or not were an affront to his personal and professional reputation.

This is amazing, because it's the Cain campaign has repeatedly made demonstrably false claims in regards to this scandal. The version of the story that is happening in your universe much be much different than ours.

Thats hilarious.

I agree with Wookie. I reviewed the thread yesterday when I wrote that novel length post to swingingglory -- throughout he has consistantly made statements giving Cain every benefit of the doubt while doing the opposite for all the women involved (as well as trashing allred and making suggestions that its all a left wing conspiracy).

He's the Mike_Clark of the Cain fiasco.

I mean, it is a weird name, so it's reasonable to guess they might be related. And I can easily see how "used to work at Politico" can turn into "works at Politico" through conversation.

But this is the campaign manager of a guy who wants the nuclear launch codes going on national TV and saying something was confirmed when it takes like 30 seconds of work to unconfirm it.

Well, charging someone with the act of trashing Allred is hardly a real indictment of anyone.